JUDGMENT

Sri S.K. Mishra, J.

1. Heard Mr. Mohd. Matloob, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. I.P. Kohli, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, the learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional Director, Haridwar being the revisional authority in Revision No. 315 of 2005-06 and Revision No. 316 of 2005-06, after the case was remanded by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2254 of 2001 on 24.10.2005.

3. The facts of the case can be narrated in the date chart as follows:-

09.05.1961. The petitioner has purchased the property bearing Khasra No. 172/2 from its predecessor Sri Multan and Ataru as per the registered sale deed. He claimed possession from that date. 16.07.1961. On the basis of sale deed, the revenue records were mutated and the petitioner was recorded in class II of the revenue records, therefore, he is in possession as Bhumidhar having transferable rights of Khasra No. 172/2. From the date of purchase till 1987 there was no objection by anybody with respect to his title or possession over the same. In the year 1987, the petitioner received a notice of Consolidation proceedings.

20.10.1987. The petitioner has filed the objections. Respondent no. 4 has also filed objection. As per his objection, he alleged claim of possession on the ground that he is recorded in Varg IX in Gata No. 172/2, 290/1 measuring 1 Bigha 15 Biswa.

15.01.1988. The Consolidation Officer, Roorkee passed the order whereby name of the petitioner was recorded.

22.02.1994. The matter was again heard by the Consolidation Officer and he passed the order recording the name of the respondent no. 4 with respect to the land in question. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 11/1 of the U.P. Consolidation Holdings Act, 1953.

28.06.1997. The appellate authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner holding that respondent no. 4 is in possession of the land in question and the petitioner did not examine Part II of the Khatauni which reflected the illegal possession of respondent no. 4. A recall petition was filed on 21.09.1998, but it was dismissed.

14.03.2001. The petitioner challenged the orders of Consolidation/ Assistant Collector, Haridwar. The revisional authority, after hearing the parties, remanded the matter to respondent no. 2 to decide the case afresh. The revisional authority in its remand order dated 14.03.2001 observed that from the record it is not clear that who is in possession of the land and that has to be considered by the Consolidation Officer by holding local inspection.

4. In 2001, respondent no. 4 challenged the order of the revisional authority by filing WPMS No. 2254 of 2001. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Court on 22.10.2005 pleased to dispose of the said writ petition with the following directions:-

“………The revisional court has remanded the matter on the ground that the spot inspection is necessary. The revisional court while hearing the revision under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act can exercise the powers for inspection either himself or through someone in order to clear the doubt about the possession…………………"

5. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the revisional court on remand. On 07.10.2007, the revisional court passed the order upholding the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer as confirmed by the appellate authority.

6. It is argued by Mr. Mohd. Matloob, the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that the revisional authority did not inspect the spot either himself or got it inspected through any of his subordinate officer. Therefore, he failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with him. Further, the learned counsel very empathetically argued that the Consolidation Officer, Roorkee, was completely in error in recalling his own order passed on 15.01.1988 recording the name of the petitioner with respect to